you're right...i didn't remember it. again..i'm not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war. i'm saying it wasn't the only reason. i'm certainly not saying that it wasn't the most important issue to many...i'm saying that to many it was not an important issue...Robert E. Lee is among those. Timing -- are you saying that the tariffs were of no concern? are you saying they had nothing to do with the tension between the north and the south? do you think all those who fought for and led the union army supported the idea of abolition of slavery throughout the nation? conversely, do you think all those who volunteered in the south were big supporters of the plantation system?? most were poor white farmers who were not slave owners at all.
here's what i'm trying to say...stated by someone else: http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02013.htm Causes of the Civil War: A Balanced Answer What caused the American Civil War? It is amazing that even today, over 130 years after the Civil War started, there is passionate debate regarding the "cause" of the Civil War. Consider this: It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery. However, equally true is the statement: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." (This was made by Sydney E. Ahlstrome, in his monumental study of religion in America A Religious History of the American People, Yale University Press,1972, on p. 649) The message here is that the reasons a nation goes to war are usually various and complicated. The American Civil War is no exception. So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights. This has been my attempt at providing a brief, balance answer to a complicated subject which has been the subject of many books. For further reading, I suggest Kenneth Stampp's Causes of the Civil War.
Here's another speech, this time given or written to convince us to follow Louisiana's secession. Again, find me the concerns about tariffs and anything else. There is a clear trend developing here I would say. Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention Presented to the Texas Secession Convention March 9, 1861 To the Hon. O.M. Roberts, President of the Convention of the People of Texas. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas. I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession, a resolution in regard to the Mississippi river and the ordinance to provide for the appointment of delegates to a convention to form a Southern Confederacy. These ordinances and the resolution were adopted at their respective dates by the people of Louisiana in convention assembled, after serious debate and calm reflection. Being desirous of obtaining the concurrence of the people of Texas in what she has done, Louisiana invites you to a candid consideration of her acts in resuming the powers delegated to the government of the late United States, and in providing for the formation of a confederacy of "The States which have seceded and may secede." The archives of the Federal Government bear ample testimony to the loyalty of Louisiana to the American Union. Her conservatism has been proverbial in political circles. The character and pursuits of her people, her immense agricultural wealth, her large banking capital, her possession of the great commercial metropolis of the South, whose varied trade almost rivals that of the city of "ten thousand masts" present facts sufficient to make "assurance double sure" she did not take these grave steps for light or transient causes. She was impelled to this action to preserve her honor, her safety, her property and the free institutions so sacred to her people. She believed the federal agent had betrayed her trust, had become the facile instrument of a hostile people, and was usurping despotic powers. She considered that the present vacillating executive, on the 4th of March next, would be supplanted by a stalwart fanatic of the Northwest, whose energetic will, backed by the frenzied bigotry of unpatriotic masses, would cause him to *establish* the military despotism already inaugurated. The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. Each of the States has an extended Gulf coast, and must look with equal solicitude to its protection now, and the acquisition of the entire control of the Gulf of Mexico in due time. No two States of this confederacy are so identified in interest, and whose destinies are so closely interwoven with each other. Nature, sympathy and unity of interest make them almost one. Recognizing these facts, but still confident in her own powers to maintain a separate existence, Louisiana regards with great concern the vote of the people of Texas on the ratification of the ordinance of secession, adopted by your honorable body on the 1st of the present month. She is confident a people who so nobly and gallantly achieved their liberties under such unparalleled difficulties will not falter in maintaining them now. The Mexican yoke could not have been more galling to "the army of heroes" of '36 than the Black republican rule would be to the survivors and sons of that army at the present day. The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual. Geo. Williamson Commissioner of the State of Louisiana City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
I think the flag is pretty offensive. I understand the argument that it represents southern heritage and pride...I grew up in Alabama and I love my state. And I remember many heated high school discussions about what the flag represented (and to whom). To many the flag is a symbol of racism and oppression. It wasn't widely used or displayed until the early 1960s -- when it emerged in both remeberence of the centennial of the Civil War and in opposition to the civil rights movement. There are many fascinating aspects of southern history, and southerners have a lot to be proud of... At the same time, it has to be recognized that slavery and its attendant evils was an integral part of southern culture, "moonlight and magnolias" notwithstanding. It's important not to romanticize the confederacy and what it was fighting for. The same is true for the history of the entire United States...witness recent discussions on the bbs about Columbus Day, and Howard Zinn's "A People's History..." So yeah, the flag is offensive. That said, I don't think it rises to the level of the swastika...and people can put it on their pickup trucks if they want...and if they do, they shouldn't be surprised if others assume that they're racist rednecks....
whoa, did you just compare the nazi annexation of the sudetenland and austria, the invasion of poland, france and the rest of western europe, and the invasion of the soviet union w/ the US invasion of iraq??? do you really think they're comparable, that the german attempt to dominate europe was merely their concept of self-defense?
ok, timing. your point is made. no need to go look for another statement of a seceding state. i get it. of course, it ignores the point of the post i put up last...that it was an issue closely associated with the wealthy politicians who wrote the very statements you're posting...but one that was of little importance to the average joe volunteering to fight in that war. bottom line is we're in agreement on the issue presented in this thread...since that happens so very rarely, i'd rather focus on that. have a good day.
Also, please don't muddle the issue with attempting to equate the reasons for individuals joining the war to why the war took place. A lot of people fighting in this war fought for a variety of reasons however the reason for the war is clear. States seceded to continue legalized slavery.
The problem I have with your reasoning of equating why the lone individual chose to fight as the reason for the war is that you could do that with any war. Why did we fight WWII? There are a million reasons why people signed up to fight but we fought it because we were attacked not because we wanted to liberate Europe from Nazi Germany.
Have any of you all read Joseph Ellis' "Founding Brothers"? One of the most interesting chapters (called "The Silence") deals with Franklin's petition to abolish slavery, and Madison's opposition to the petition in order to bring about the union of the states. Ellis points out that one of the most essential agreements reached at Philadelphia in 1787 was the decision to remove slavery in the southern states from any influence by the northern states. This was necessary in order to achieve solidarity. Otherwise the Southern, pro-slavery states would not have joined the union. Throughout the writing of the constitution, especially the sections pertaining state vs. federal authority, slavery was the elephant in the room. The newly formed republic could not survive without Georgia and especially Virginia, so the founders deferred to the leaders of these states on the issue. The Ellis book makes it clear that even as the constitution was being written, the founders recognized that they were leaving the issue of slavery to be decided by future generations. The last chapter of the book explores the friendship between Jefferson and Adams. In letters to each other near the end of their lives, they both write about their fears regarding slavery and its effect on the future of the country... Jefferson wrote, "In the gloomiest moments of the Revolutionary War, I never had any apprehensions equal to what I feel from this source" Adams wrote "Slavery in this Country I have seen hanging over it like a black cloud for half a Century..." It's weird when you read the book and realized that they knew even then that this was the questions that was potentially the most harmful to the country.... It's a great book, I recommend it to anyone interested in American history, especially the founders. On a lighter note, "Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War" by Tony Horwitz is a hilarious and informative book. He writes about the Civil War re-enactors and other groups who can't let the Confederate dream die. It's very funny, but he manages to write about some frankly wacky people without demeaning or diminishing either them or the South, which I thought was a pretty impressive feat....
Timing, I disagree, I think. Even the speeches you posted also deal with other issues, and freedoms in general. Slavery is one issue, and obviously a very important reason why the South wanted to secede from the union. I don't believe it was the only reason. If you are saying they did secede to continue slavery as well as other reasons then I do agree, if you say the only reason they seceded was slavery then I disagree.
Your paranoid delusions are irritating at best. The war was not about slavery. It was about a multitude of issues. Lincoln wasn't even against slavery. Why don't you drag up his early debates and post them... "Comprehend that my friend. Any other representation for that flag is something dreamt up to ignore reality." Sorry, you are wrong. I can have it represent anything I want it to, and I won't be ignoring reality. Things don't mean the same things to different people. You are an antagonistic, hateful person yourself who associates negatives with something that isn't negative in and of itself.
You can have Charles Manson represent goodness in your fantasy world if you want and likewise you will be ignoring reality. Where do you get this nonsense? You've not dealt with the facts in any manner whatsoever. You've presented nothing but dumb quips and yips worthy of Trader Texxx troll status and the accompanying ignore. Congrats on your underwhelming effort but you're probably best served sticking to the hangout to talk about losing your virginity to drunk coeds.
The slavery issue was the primary issue and the largest issue. Can you point out where in those speeches they talk about anything but slavery directly or indirectly? The freedoms and "institutions" they talk about are all about slavery in my view. All of the compromises they talk about in there had to do with slavery. I didn't see any passage that had anything to do with something other than slavery.
Ah.....more of the high-minded wisdom of Timing, a man who is never wrong and knows everything there is to know and more. The Confederate flag means different things to different people. Just because some are offended by its very presence doesn't mean that everyone remotely attached to that banner is shamed by a bigoted few who use it as a symbol. Slavery was ONE of the reasons why the war happened. The Southerners would have lost their way of life, wrong as it was, if things had continued onward. The Founders took a pass on the slavery issue and less than a century later, it came back to haunt us. So get over it. That banner is only a bit of stitching and fabric, nothing more. And I'm really sick of how you personally attack every single last right-leaning poster on the board. Disagre with the all-knowing Timing and face his mighty wrath.
Charles Manson means different things to different people too, he's still in prison though. lol Bama you have over the last few weeks called people traitors, cowards, seditious, and much worse actually and here you are talking about you're sick of personal attacks? Oh my god!!!!!!! If you read the tale of the tape here, you could easily see that the personal attack started in Nomar's post to which I responded to with kid gloves. BTW, you know nothing about Nomar's posting history here and the disgusting things he's said to me directly and advocated in general. As much as you like to flap your gums with your macho man self there are a lot of things that have gone on here that you have no clue about which are reflected in how people respond to one another. Something you should probably keep in mind the next time you choose to involve yourself in something you don't know anything about.
From the LA speech: She believed the federal agent had betrayed her trust, had become the facile instrument of a hostile people, and was usurping despotic powers. She considered that the present vacillating executive, on the 4th of March next, would be supplanted by a stalwart fanatic of the Northwest, whose energetic will, backed by the frenzied bigotry of unpatriotic masses, would cause him to *establish* the military despotism already inaugurated. The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. They talk about despotism, what they feel is tyranny, self governing etc. And it also mentions liberties as a whole when saying that the people of Louisiana would be unwilling to surrender their liberties... Again I'm not denying that it wasn't about slavery, as that's certainly mentioned specifically in the text. It does however talk on broader terms about concerns of tyranny, liberty, despotism etc.
Well that's a little vague I think you'd agree but I believe they're talking mostly about the various property compromises that left slave holding states in the cold. The US buying property as a collective and then prohibiting the extension of slavery to that property. Kind of taxation without representation in a strange'ish kind of way which is the constitutional equality they refer to I believe. The despotism and tyranny I'd have to guess is Lincoln's inauguration which was on March 4th, the date mentioned there. The secession started right after Lincoln's election in January which gives context to the January 26th reference.
If this has already been posted, then I apologize. I read about one page on this before I had to speak. The idea of the Southern Secession Flag and the German Nazi Swastika is comparable to a Texas (Country) flag and a Mexican flag. For any historian, or anyone who has paid attention to it, the Civil War had as much to do with slavery as The Iraq war has to do with liberating Iraqi's; it's a nice afterthought, but it most certainly wasn't the reason for the war. Whereas, in World War II the Germans, at least nowadays, (recall that every nation was told by Germany that they could take the jews if they wanted them, and no country obliged; or the fact that the U.S. remained neutral until Japan attacked.) was considered the barbaric, genocidal force. (and please, please debate me on anything on WWII, anyone!) The Southern flag represented independence. The fact that I grew up seeing hundreds of bumper stickers saying "them damn yankees!" made me appreciate our independence. The fact is, the Rebel Flag was never an imagery of slavery until the late '80's, for whatever reason. It was nothing more than a rebellious attitude that we Southerners felt towards New York, and the other NE states. I'm sick and tired of everyone trying not to hurt anyone's feelings. Get over it! Or, if you are truly compassionate, give one half of your land to an American Indian. Otherwise, you are as big a hypocrite as anyone. And please debate me on this. Someone. Independence against something you don't believe in is wrong? Hmmmmmm.
The fact is, the Rebel Flag was never an imagery of slavery until the late '80's ... I find this sweeping generalization : Not Factual.
